^* (3.10.) : In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I desire to give some reasons why the measure should be approved and referred to a Committee upstairs. Perhaps I ought to apologise for interposing in regard to a London Bill, but my excuse is that I have lived in London all my life. The present position of Hanover Chapel is somewhat unfortunate. The district is a very extensive one, consisting of a wealthy portion, and another portion which is very poor; and on the extreme edge of the richer portion this Chapel is situate. The congregation is consequently very scanty. The wealthy tradesmen of Regent Street do not stay in that part of London on Sunday, and as the congregation has to come from other parts it is naturally very small. The church itself is badly in need of repair, and quite £500 or £600 is required for this purpose, but there is no source from which such a sum can be obtained. The Duke of Westminster has come forward and offered another site, worth £20,000, for the erection of a new church in the centre of the parish, and in the midst of the poorer population. If that offer is accepted and the present church is sold, it is estimated that the sale will realise sufficient not only for the building of a new church, but to endow it adequately. One difficulty is that the present church has no residence attached to it. The clergyman resides out of the parish, but it is hoped that if the new arrangement is carried out, there will be sufficient funds to build a vicarage. There is certainly no reason why the Bill should not go before a Select Committee. The only argument against it is an architectural one. My hon. Friend the Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire (Mr. Tatton Egerton) has placed on the Paper an Instruction to the Committee to authorise the Charity Commissioners to amend the Trinity Chapel scheme, and give to the new church the same income as to the other churches under the scheme, and transfer the balance of the double portion given (under the plea of absence of endowment) to the Hanover Chapel to the Mother Church of St. George's, Hanover Square. No doubt the point raised by my hon. Friend is one that deserves consideration, and perhaps if the Bill goes before a Committee a case may be made out for a redistribution of the Trinity Trust. The promoters of the Bill are quite willing that the proposal should be discussed upstairs.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—( Viscount Cranborne. )

^* (3.15.) : I rise to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I object to it because it involves the destruction of a consecrated edifice. Not any Petitions have been presented in favour of the Bill, but, on the other hand, four important Petitions have been presented against it. One is from the Vestry of the Parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, who object to the removal of the human remains now reposing in the vaults of the church. Many hon. Members will, I am sure, sympathise with that feeling. The petitioners go on to say that the building is not inconveniently situated, and that the proposed church will be situated in a bye street and not in the centre of the poorer population. The second Petition is from the Trinity Trust, who pay £200 a year to free sittings in the church, and contribute £50 a year towards the maintenance of the fabric, besides subscribing a moiety of the stipend of the incumbent. The third Petition is from the Society of British Architects, and the fourth comes from the Council of the Royal Academy. In my opinion, no case has been made out for the Bill. The portico is said to be a nuisance, but it is of great convenience to poor persons, who are able to rest there and to find shelter when it is raining heavily. In the next place, if it is intended to accommodate the poor the new site proposed will not be found more convenient than the present edifice. At the present moment there is a large population in the immediate neighbourhood of the existing church who will be much inconvenienced by its removal. The Bishop of London, who is said to be in favour of the Bill, is an advocate for additional churches in populous places. Why, then, destroy this, which occupies a conspicuous position in a crowded district? I regard the proposal as a desecration even if there were a necessity; but in this case there is no necessity, and I entertain a decided objection to the pulling down of these old edifices. The House will remember that similar attempts at destruction have been made from time to time even against the beautiful church of St. Margaret's yonder, and Canon Farrar wrote of those who proposed the Vandalism, as talking ignorant nonsense. It was likewise sought to destroy the handsome portico of St. Martin's, Trafalgar Square, for facilities of traffic, but the House of Commons rejected the proposal, as I hope hon. Members will do with this Bill.

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."—( Mr. Norris. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

^* (3.25.) : If a church only 65 years old is to be regarded as an ancient monument, I am afraid there are a good many ancient monuments about the Benches of this House. The real question to be considered is the interest of the parish.

As to the question of contributions towards the erection of the building borrowed on the church rate, it seems to be forgotten that church rates have been abolished, and I fail to see how any claim can be made on that account. Another sentimental argument is, that the church porch affords a comfortable shelter during rain, but if that argument is to have any force, there ought to be rain shelter provided in every street in London. The best argument for the removal of the building is, that it is a long way from the parishioners who wish to go to it, and I have always understood that now-a-days it is necessary to bring the church to the doors of the people, instead of requiring them to go a considerable distance in order to attend their church. One strong argument in favour of the Bill is that the generous offer of the Duke of Westminster may never be made again. On these grounds I hope that the common sense of the House will carry the Second Reading of the measure, and the recommendations which have been made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Norris) can be dealt with by the Committee upstairs.

^* (3.28.) : I think it would be a good arrangement to remove this church to a more convenient part of the parish, and from that point of view the Bill commends itself to our support. One of the objections which have been urged is that the removal of the church will involve the destruction of an architectural building of reputation. Now, the building is only 65 years old, so that it is not a very venerable structure, and as to its architectural merits there are differences of opinion. I am able to say, from personal knowledge, that the congregation is very small. I visited the church one Sunday morning, and was very much surprised at the smallness of the congregation. If the congregation I saw was a fair average, I do not think it is likely to be very much smaller wherever the church may be placed. Upon every ground I should regard the removal of the church as a desirable proposal. There is, however, another feature which deserves consideration. The intention is that the Government shall practically purchase the site. The Woods and Forests are to purchase it for a sum of £60,000, so I am told—a price which will enable the new church to be liberally endowed. This is a consideration which certainly ought to be borne in mind, and I should be glad to learn whether the sum mentioned is a reasonable price. I should also like to know whether the parish as a whole has any claim upon the money, and whether there are any other claims. The church was, I believe, originally built by borrowed money on the security of the rates of the whole parish of St. George's, and I am under the impression that the debt was paid off out of money raised by the general body of parishioners. In dealing with the purchase price, I think the parishioners should have some voice in the distribution of the money.

^* : The parishioners have been consulted, and have passed a strong resolution in favour of the Bill.

^* : I have no doubt that the parishioners were consulted as to the proposition for the removal of the church from one part of the district parish to another, but were they consulted as to the propriety of endowing the new church out of public money? The present church is the property of the parish, and not of the people who worship in it. If the congregation is transferred to the new church, and the old site is sold for £60,000, the Duke of Westminster giving a new site worth £20,000, representing the old site, there will still be a large sum of public money to be dealt with. If it should turn out that the site offered by the Duke of Westminster is not worth £20,000, there will be a larger sum of public money appropriated? I think there are considerations inolved in the matter which will require careful attention, and I trust that if the Bill is to go upstairs, the Select Committee will, in the interests of the public, enter into a full investigation in order to ascertain first, whether the price to be paid is a fair one; secondly, whether the parishioners have any claim to the money; and lastly, whether there are any other claims. I trust also that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests will be called upon to give evidence that the price to be paid is a reasonable and proper price.

As one of the oldest inhabitants of the parish, I desire to say a few words on this subject. The Royal Academicians object to the removal because the church was designed by Cotterill, but I should like to know why they never objected before when the Junior Army and Navy Club and other places designed by Cotterill were pulled down? Why, again, was the piastre in Regent Street removed? It was an architectural feature, but it was removed. because it interfered with the shops and obscured the light. For the same reason this chapel is to be removed because very few of the public have attended it for many years past. The Crown claim the site, but they propose to pay £45,000 for it. Reference has been made to the removal of the bodies from the vaults, but there is an Act of Parliament which requires all disinterments of this nature to be conducted with decency. The Duke of Westminster, with his usual munificence, is giving a new site in Davies Street. That site is large enough both for a church and a vicarage house annexed to it. The passing of the Bill will be a great boon to the people in the West End. I shall support the Second Reading, and I may say, in conclusion, that the Bishop of London has given his consent to the scheme all through.

I beg to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I sympathise very much with the spirit which has animated my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse in objecting to the measure. I am ready to admit that no interference with a place of worship should be sanctioned except after the gravest consideration and with full reference to the needs of the locality. As the result of the proposal there will be a large addition to the bulk of the church revenue. The exceptional value of the site will cause something like £45,000 to be paid into the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the munificence of the Duke of Westminster will further augment the value of the new edifice. Therefore, looking at the matter from a business view, and from the point of expediency, and without giving undue weight to sentimental considerations, which I thoroughly respect, I am inclined to think that the Church will make a good bargain by this measure. The only opposition comes from the In- stitute of British Architects, and I am at a loss to understand why gentlemen of that profession should object to a proposition which must necessarily bring grist to the architectural mill. I hope the Bill will be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, before whom all questions of detail can be threshed out.

The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed) has used a mercenary argument. He has expressed his surprise that the Society of British Architects should oppose a measure which will bring grist to their mill. Now, I sympathise to a large extent with the arguments which have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Limehouse. I am opposed to all change whatever, unless it is proved to be necessary. When once a change is proved to be necessary I am ready to support it, but I am bound to oppose it until its necessity is proved. In this case I do not think the change is at all necessary. It is said that the inhabitants who require the church are at the other extremity of the parish, but I do not see why we should draw a line of half a mile in a small ecclesiastical district, and I presume that there is no parishioner who cannot find his way to one of the churches in the locality; therefore there is no weight to be attached to the argument; but there are other questions involved which ought to be seriously considered. The Preamble of the Bill says—

"And whereas the site on which the said church now stands was granted by the then Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land revenues without consideration by a deed dated the 12th day of June, 1824, to Her Majesty's Commissioners as then constituted for building new churches."

It was granted without consideration. Not a single halfpenny was paid for it, and since 1824 the land has grown enormously in value. We have heard a good deal about the unearned increment, but here we have had a present made out of the possessions of the Crown, and not more than 60 years afterwards we are asked to remove the building to another site, and to call upon the Crown to pay the full value. I think that that is a proposition which ought to be resisted, especially as the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church are not far off. We are now called upon in reality to make at the public expense an immense addition to a Church endowment, and the result will be that when disendowmcnt comes, we shall be told it cannot be touched because it is the private property of a Corporation. I know of a similar case in Liverpool, where £10,000 was asked for a piece of land which was given to the Church in a previous generation. It was only after a considerable amount of persuasion that £3,000 was accepted. Similar jobs—for I can call it nothing else—have been perpetrated by Ecclesiastical Corporations in other parts of the country, and now that the House has an opportunity of condemning such proceedings I hope it will do so. If it is necessary to remove the church, let the Church Corporation give back the land to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; the Duke of Westminster will not withdraw his liberal offer of a site, and the parishioners can then go to work and build another church on the new site. In the interests of the taxpayers of the country I shall certainly oppose this bargain. The Woods and Forests only represent the interests of the struggling taxpayers, and why should they be called upon to give £45,000 for property which they once gave away?

The site does not belong to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but to the Crown.

That may be a distinction in name, but it is not a distinction in substance. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests represent the Crown, and the Crown represent the public; and when we speak of the interests of the Crown we speak of the interests of the public at large.

, who was imperfectly heard in the Gallery, was understood to say: The matter is one which appears to me to require simply the exercise of a little common sense. Here is a church built many years ago which does not now answer the purpose for which it was intended, and I fail to see why the House should refuse to allow the parishioners to avail themselves of the opportunity to make other terms and to take advantage of the generous offer of the Duke of Westminster, by which not only the incumbent and his congregation, but the parish generally, will be benefited. I shall certainly support the Second Reading.

^* : Here we have public property given for a church 67 years ago, and it is now proposed to remove the building without giving back the site, but demanding £45,000 for it. In reality, it is proposed to give it to one of the richest men in the world for a purpose which other people carry out at their own expense. I think it is an extraordinary thing for the Duke of Westminster to come here and ask for £45,000 to build a church and a vicarage in the richest parish of London. Any other man, owning the whole of the property around, would only be too proud to provide a church and minister's house for the people who contribute so enormously to his wealth. It must also be borne in mind that the entire parish will not participate in the benefit, but that it is to be an endowment for Church of England worshippers alone, nonconformists receiving no benefit whatever from this large grant of public money.

I was outside the House just before this discussion began, speaking to a friend of mine, who remarked, "This is just the time that we ought to be here, because it is at the end of the Session, when there are only a few Members in attendance, that the Tories are fond of running their little jobs." I did not think, at the moment, that the truth of the observation would have been proved so conclusively as it has been by this Bill. I do not think hon. Members opposite can have read the Bill. They seem to be under the impression that the money—£45,000—is to be expended in building a church and a vicarage. But when this has been done there will be a surplus, and that surplus is actually to be invested in securities, and the interest to be handed over half-yearly to the vicar as part of his emolument. So that not only is it proposed to build this church and vicarage at the public expense, but at a time when the majority of the country are in favour of disestablishment and disendowment, we are actually asked to endow a fresh church. I think there is a great deal of truth in what an hon Member said just now, that a great deal of the advantage of this bargain will go into the pocket of the Duke of Westminster. We all know that when an agnostic or any other wicked man in the neighbourhood of London wishes to convert land into a building estate he builds a church, or gives the site for a church, in order that his property may thereby become more valuable, and ft is very obvious that the Duke of Westminster gives this land, not from any religious motive, but simply to increase the value of his property. ["Oh, oh!"] I know that hon. Members opposite are of opinion that gentlemen who do this sort of thing ought not to be accused of it, but I do accuse the Duke of Westminster of it. The present case is a most monstrous one. This land, which formerly belonged to the nation, was given for the one purpose of building a church—an estimable object, no doubt—but these speculative Churchmen want to sell it, and certainly, if the church is removed, it is only fair that the land or its value should be given back to the nation. I hope the House will decisively reject the Second Reading of the Bill.

I cannot help thinking that we have had what somewhat resembles a storm in a teapot. I think the question of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church has very little to do with the matter, but I may point out that even if the Church were disestablished and disendowed it would be perfectly possible to bring in a Bill of this kind. The main question for the House is whether it is for the convenience of the neighbourhood that the church should be removed, and upon that point there does not appear to be much doubt, as the people of the parish are in favour of the Bill. As to the question of architectural beauty, I think that very few persons whose opinions are of any value would say that this particular church is a beautiful edifice, although the porch may afford a convenient shelter. As to the use made of the interior, I have only visited the church once, and that was on a Saturday afternoon. If the attendance which I then witnessed was an average one, the services of the church cannot be very much wanted in the neighbourhood, as I found that I was myself one-fifth of the con- gregation. The church has no real beauty of any kind that is sufficient to require us to retain the structure as a monument of artistic merit. In my opinion, a clear case has been made out for sending the Bill to a Select Committee.

The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 91.—(Div. List, No. 346.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

I beg to give notice that upon the further consideration of the Bill I will move that it be referred to a Hybrid Committee.

Is this sum put in the Estimates for the first time?

It is mentioned for the first time.

I should like to know what are the functions of the Lord President. There was a time when he was engaged in educational matters. That has ceased, because the Vice President looks after the job. There was a time when he had something to do with agriculture. That is now done by the President of the Board of Agriculture.

^* : The hon. Member is mistaken. The Lord President is distinctly interested in educational matters.

We are all interested, of course; but the Lord President gets a salary of £2,000, and does he for that take part in the work connected with education?

^* : He acts as Minister.

^* : What are the duties which the Lord President discharges? because the information we have received is of a very indefinite character. The duties should be onerous when it is considered necessary to pay him £2,000 a year for the performance of them. The Clerk of the Council, the deputy, senior and junior clerks, all receive large salaries, amounting in the aggregate to £6,620.

^* : I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great many duties attach to the Department. All Orders in Council pass through it, besides which the Office has a great deal to do with education. There is a great deal of work to be done both by the Minister and the Department.

I notice that one of the senior clerks is allowed to go away on military duty as Lieutenant-Colonel of Militia, and receives pay. I wish to know whether he is paid both as a Militia officer and as a clerk, or whether any deduction is made from his pay? That sort of thing would not be allowed among the junior clerks. I should also like some information about this £50 to purveyors of luncheons. I have noticed other sums of £25 for a similar purpose. It seems to me that these highly-paid officials should pay for the expenses connected with their luncheons out of their own pockets, as clerks in commercial houses are expected to do. I move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £50.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, salaries and wages, be reduced by £50, allowance to purveyor of luncheons."—( Mr. Morton. )

^* : I think some explanation ought to be forthcoming in respect of this item, and how it is that though it is a small office it has £50, while larger offices have only £25. It is an extraordinary thing that Members of this House who do not receive one farthing for their services have to pay a fair price for what they eat and drink in the building, while the clerks in the Government Offices, with high salaries, are supplied with refreshments at a price which entails a loss, because I assume the excuse is that the purveyor cannot get a profit on the prices he charges. These clerks are well paid, and we ought not to be asked to provide them with refreshments at a cheap rate, or to recoup the purveyor for the loss he sustains. I think the item ought to be rejected by the Committee. I wish also to ask a question as to the office hours of the higher and lower grade clerks in the Privy Council Office. I want to know what time they enter the establishment, what time they leave, and what hours they have for refreshment? I should also like similar information as to the hours of the other persons engaged in the office.

There is one point on which my hon. Friend is mistaken with regard to these luncheons. He says it is monstrous that these clerks should have luncheon for nothing, or at a cheap rate, while we have to pay for what we consume. But my hon. Friend forgets that this House votes £1,000 to the Kitchen Committee to provide coal and other things. I would point out that we must reform ourselves before we attempt to reform others.

I was not here when the £1,000 was passed, but next year I propose to move its omission from the Estimates, and I can, therefore, with a clear conscience, vote with my hon. Friend. There are only 10 clerks in the Privy Council Office, and yet we are asked to vote £50 for refreshments. In the Colonial Office, and some other offices, where there are large staffs of clerks, there is no Vote at all for the luncheons. I think the Treasury ought to grant an allowance to all the offices or stop the allowance in the case of those which have it.

It seems to me that there is a great deal of unnecessary time taken up in the discussion of very small matters. The hon. Gentleman who raised this question spoke as though these "highly-paid clerks," as he called them, got their luncheons for nothing.

^* : What I said was that the inference to be drawn from the appearance of this sum in the Votes was that they received their luncheons at a reduced rate, and that the purveyor in consequence sustained a loss, which is made up to him by these amounts. I did not say that they had free, but cheap meals at the expense of the nation.

In other words the hon. Member repeats his statement, that the State is called upon to provide a luncheon at a loss for these clerks. Now, provision is made for obtaining food and refreshments in these offices, not in the interest of the purveyor, but in the interest of the public service. Anybody who knows anything about the affairs connected with Public Departments, knows it is impossible to carry on business unless a great number of clerks are in constant attendance. It is not even for the convenience of the clerks, but for the convenience of the public service that luncheons are provided in the offices, and no more false economy could possibly be perpetrated than to limit the opportunities of getting a cup of tea or a mutton chop in the office. I would point out that the Privy Council Office includes all the Education Office, and, therefore, it is not a small office. I do not myself think that £50 is at all too much, and I do not suppose the purveyor gets one fraction of profit out of it, the demand for refreshment being extremely irregular. The alternative is for these clerks to go to the nearest establishment they can find to get their luncheons, thereby losing great deal more time. It is impossible to fix a particular hour at which a particular clerk shall leave, because Ministers may call at any period of the day for some important information, and, therefore, it is really for the great con- venience of the public service that this allowance should be continued. The hours of attendance of the official clerks at the Privy Council Office are from 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock, and the messengers from 10 to 6. But most persons with experience of the Government Departments know that during a large portion of the year there is some one in attendance as a general rule until 7, 8, or 9 o'clock in the evening. It is not necessarily the case that the clerks do not stay a great deal longer than the official hours.

^* (5.10.) : The right hon. Gentleman has certainly not given a satisfactory answer to the question I addressed to him concerning the time allowed the clerks for lunch, and why it should be necessary to pay £50 to this purveyor. It seems to me that these officials do get their meals at a reduced price, and that we are called upon to make up out of the taxes the loss to the purveyor. I think we have a right to know who is the purveyor. It has been stated that it is one of the officials who provides these refreshments.

I believe, Sir, the ordinary understanding is that there is half an hour for luncheon.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question about the senior clerk.

The hon. Member has moved a reduction on the luncheon question, and that must be dealt with first.

Well, I am not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and I do not admit his right to lecture us for seeking information on these Votes, whether the questions we raise are small or not. Surely he must know that if we can save the pennies the pounds will take care of themselves. It is a well-known fact that in public offices the clerks can take an hour and can go out if they choose.

I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in his Motion, because I think this Vote is being dropped by the Departments one by one. I think, however, we ought to know whether the luncheons are purveyed by one of the clerks or by someone outside.

I believe it is usually done by the office keeper. I do not see that there is any harm in that.

I do not feel called upon to champion the Government, but I cannot honestly sit here and listen to the grotesque caricature of the practice which has fallen from my hon. Friends. It would be perfectly impossible to administer many public Departments if the staffs were in the habit of going out to luncheon in the middle of the day. It would absolutely upset all discipline and would materially interfere with work. I think, however, it would be very much better if the Estimate showed that the money asked for is simply the wage paid to the distributing servants who take the luncheons from the kitchens to the various rooms. The purveyors are obliged to bring in servants to distribute the luncheons, and that is the whole sum and substance of the matter.

I do not see why my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough should be blamed for discussing these unconsidered trifles. My hon. Friend is in the nature of an elephant, being able to crush an oak or to pick up a pin with equal facility. I really believe that the country gains by the arrangement for providing the clerks with refreshments in their offices. The £50 merely means that the office keeper has a retaining fee to supply minor refreshments and obtain assistance in carrying them about the offices.

^* : The hon. Member seems to have lost sight of the fact that the staff are paid high salaries, and, therefore, are in a position to pay for refreshments at cost price.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £111,213, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."

I beg to move the reduction of Sub-head 2 by £500, in order to obtain information on certain points. Having from time to time obtained trustworthy information from men who spend their lives on the ocean, I think the insuffi- ciency of medical provision and supervision on the transatlantic liners and in the Mercantile Marine generally with regard to steerage passengers demands greater attention. I think also that inquiry is needed with regard to the great risks incurred in consequence of the system under which master mariners at sea doctor the members of their crew without having any acquintance with the medical art. On several occasions I have brought these matters before the House. Many of these ships are sent to sea without sufficient accommodation for their steerage passengers, and many of the men have to crowd together in a most disgusting way. Some eight years ago the Board of Trade issued a Circular calling upon the surgeons to report any cases of overcrowding or of insanitary conditions; but no complaints have been made. This is because it is as much as the medical officer's post is worth to make any complaint. Two medical men have written largely on the subject, and their writings have been made public in the Lancet and the British Medical Journal. They are Dr. Irwin, who is now making a large fortune in the city of New York, and Dr. Leet, of Liverpool. Dr. Leet, who had had great experience in the Army Medical Service in Great Britain, became medical man on the steamer Celtic, of the White Star Line. He says he very soon found in-sanitary conditions, but he was indirectly warned all round to report nothing if his berths was to be a permanent one. After struggling with his conscience for two years he received his first snub, when he wrote a polite letter intimating that the steerage accommodation was of an improper character. His letter was treated with contemptuous silence. Three years afterwards he wrote another letter, drawing attention to the sanitary defects of the Celtic, and registered it at the Post Office to ensure delivery. This was also received with contemptuous silence, as was another letter, written a few months later, in 1886. The ship was laid up during the following winter, and when she was brought out again the managers dismissed Dr. Leet without giving him any satisfaction. He was dismissed simply because he acted according to the letter and the spirit of the Board of Trade regulations and reported the insanitary condition of the vessel. I have myself been on board many of the ships belonging to different transatlantic lines that touch at Queenstown, and I know many of the men on board them. I know, from my personal acquaintance with these gentlemen, that it is absolutely out of their power to do anything to remedy the defects. In his letter to the British Medical Journal Mr. Irving says shipowners take precaution to comply with the minimum requirements of the law, and judiciously select men who will not see what they are not wanted to see in the interest of their employers. But I hope, though he has to do with capitalists who are large shipowners, the President of the Board of Trade will guard the interests of those poor emigrants who, in search of employment, leave this country for the Western Continent. Again and again have representations been made as to the necessity of medical men on board these liners being placed in an independent position with the means of making their remonstrances effective. In the present day all space in these passenger vessels is of the greatest value, and this makes the companies extremely covetous of any space which may be allotted for sanitary purposes. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to recollect what has been done with regard to the Australian vessels. Medical men are put on board those ships who are independent and who are responsible only to the Board of Trade. But the position of medical men on board the steamers to America is not such as to enable them to discharge the duties required of them by the Board of Trade. Vessels proceeding from Liverpool to America are inspected by Board of Trade officials at Liverpool and Queenstown. Nothing can be more ridiculous than these inspections. The medical men stand in the gangway and look at the emigrants as they enter the ship. How can any one detect in such circumstances a case of zymotic disease? It is frequently found, shortly after a ship has put to sea, that there is an outbreak of one of these diseases. As a matter of fact it is ascertained, on making inquiries on the American side, that a great mass of disease is frequently imported into America in consequence of the sanitary regulations of the Board of Trade not being complied with. Again, the regulations of the Board of Trade with respect to hospitals are often disregarded. The hospitals are made use of for all sorts of purposes. It frequently happens that a purser, a doctor, or an engineer gives up his cabin to a passenger, and then finds other quarters for himself in the hospital. I know of one case when the hospital was turned into a sort of mortuary. This is the way in which the regulations of the Board of Trade are treated. If the medical man reports on the subject he gets what is technically called the sack and loses his situation. I know that the President of the Board of Trade has said that if a flagrant case were brought under his notice he would order a prosecution, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely impossible to get the information laid, for the people who could give it know that if they did so they would lose their situations, and the emigrants who suffer have not the opportunity—when they land their thoughts and efforts are at once turned to earning a living. Another point I wish to mention is that a distinct place should be set apart on board the vessels for keeping the medicine chest, and also for the compounding of medicines, which ought not to be done in the hospital. The situation of the hospitals, too, should be altered. At present they are generally established in the most out-of-the-way and inconvenient places, whereas they ought to be on the main deck, and placed amidships. It is of great importance likewise that the Board of Trade should take steps to insure a sufficient supply of fresh water on board the steamers that carry large complements of steerage passengers. At present the state of things in this respect is deplorable. I remember that not many years since a vessel named the Servia went across the Atlantic with 700 steerage passengers, and only one water tap was furnished to supply all these people with fresh water for all purposes—cooking, drinking, and washing. It was a miserable sight to see the strings of people waiting all day long to get the chance of a little water to quench their thirst, and how could there be health or cleanliness under such cir- cumstances? There is yet another matter, perhaps even more important than any I have yet mentioned, to which I desire to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. There are many of the smaller lines which carry emigrants across the Atlantic from England to America, but return laden with cattle, because the carriage of cattle pays best. When the vessels arrive at Liverpool they are, of course, in a very filthy and unwholesome state; and yet within a week, the cattle-pens having been removed, the vessels, only partially cleansed, and still in a filthy state, start again on the voyage to America filled with emigrants. No permanent sanitary regulations are observed on board such ships. Mr. Plimsoll interested himself in this matter, but little has been done by way of improvement. Two years ago I brought under the attention of the President of the Board of Trade a case in which 700 emigrants were battened down in severe weather for three days in a vessel going across the Atlantic, and this was done without any observance of sanitary requirements. Water was passed down to the emigrants only three times a day, and the condition of things that this led to was indescribably horrible. When such things take place in spite of the rules and regulations of the Board of Trade, it is necessary that some more stringent action should be taken. At present the ship's surgeon is powerless in the matter. My opinion is supported by high medical authorities, including the public medical journals, both the British Medical Journal and the Lancet, and they have argued in favour of providing an effective remedy by making the surgeons on board the vessels thoroughly independent of the shipowners, so that they may, if necessary, communicate freely and fearlessly with the Board of Trade. Great improvements have been effected in the emigrant service to Australia, and surely the same might be done in connection with that to America, and I earnestly trust the right hon. Gentleman will give the Committee some assurance that he will move in the matter. Then I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case of trading vessels which are not carrying passengers, put to sea with a large complement of men on board, and are not provided with any medical assistance at all. My own experience as a medical man, and the information I have from medical friends in Liverpool, leads me to say that an immense amount of suffering and complications of diseases ensue from men falling ill or sustaining injuries on board ship and having no means of medical relief at hand. Of course the captains have had no medical training, and I think they should be obliged to attend a certain course of lectures. I find that this year there are no fewer than 21,779 vessels registered, of which 13,835 are sailing vessels over 100 tons, and 6,502 steam vessels. If one considers the enormous number of sailors on board those vessels, and the large number of families dependent upon them, the stronger will appear the necessity for steps being taken to secure that some medical skill is on board in case of need. You had Returns dealing with this matter in 1875 and 1882, but very little has been done with regard to it. Dr. J. F. Maguire, of Cork, who first called attention to the question, got on board one of these steamers without anybody knowing who he was, and was taken to America, so that he was able to throw considerable light on the horrors of the passage. Of course many of the faults of those days have been remedied, but many still remain, and as a medical man and an Irish Member, whose country has been decimated by emigration, the result, as I believe, of misgovernment, I think I should not be doing my duty if I did not call attention to these grievances. I believe that the more they are made public the more satisfactorily they will be dealt with for the benefit of the poor people themselves and of humanity.

^* (6.5.) : The hon. Member has gone at very considerable length into this matter. I do not at all question the importance of the subject, but on that account I should have been glad if the hon. Member had given me some little notice of his intention to bring it forward.

I should certainly have given notice, but I did not think there was any necessity for doing so. I said last year I would bring it on.

^* : I can hardly accept that as proper notice, but I do not at all complain of the course the hon. Member has taken except on the ground that it renders me incapable of following him into the details. In 1888 the hon. Member made almost the same speech as he has made to-night. [Dr. TANNER dissented.] Well, that is my recollection. I think he will admit that I answered him to tins effect: that I was anxious to put down any evils of the kind to which he alluded, and if he would furnish any detailed cases where those evils had occurred, I would have them thoroughly investigated, and the persons who might be found guilty punished. The hon. Member supplied me with no details, but, in spite of that, I soon afterwards directed an inquiry to be made at Liverpool by one of the highest officers of the Board of Trade. That investigation was made towards the close of 1888, and I was utterly unable to discover any ground for the accusation the hon. Member had made against the lines trading between Liverpool and America. When the hon. Member made a similar speech last Session, I made him the same offer as on the previous occasion, but no facts have been brought to my knowledge, and I am in the same position as before. With regard to the suggestion that it would be better if medical officers on these ships could keep their medicine chests in some place other than their berths, and that in some ships the situation of the hospital should be altered, I shall be glad to look into the point, and if I can make any regulations which will insure better sanitary arrangements, I will certainly do so. There must be some amount of hurry in the inspection of emigrant ships on leaving port, but I believe, after doing the very best in my power to make myself acquainted with the facts, that the medical officers intrusted with this duty perform it in an able, zealous, and competent manner. There may have been individual cases—I remember one— where an emigrant has been permitted to take passage who ought not to have been allowed to go on the vessel, but such cases are very rare indeed. I believe, also, that as regards the accommodation of passengers the requirements of the law are carried out. It is, of course, impossible to send an officer to go through the voyage on every emigrant ship to see that no regulation is broken during the voyage; but I think better of the medical profession than to believe that the medical officers will not be as ready to report any breach of the regulations as their brethren on land are to report on insanitary matters. The hon. Member's proposal that the position of medical officers should be independent of the shipowners, and the suggestion with reference to vessels on which there is no medical officer could not be carried out without legislation. I have no power to make any regulations dealing with those matters at all. I am afraid that I can only again repeat that if the hon. Member can produce any evidence of individual cases in which regulations of the Board of Trade have been broken during the voyage, I will not only have an inquiry conducted on the spot, but will also endeavour so to watch such ships in future that any further infringement shall be rendered impossible.

I am afraid I have not gained much, but I shall try and do my best in this matter as long as I am a Member of this House. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it could not be provided that medical officers should report to the Board of Trade instead of to their owners. A point is made in the British Medical Journal about medical officers being-called upon to report more fully than they are in the habit of doing.

^* : My impression has been that there was some duty incumbent on the medical officers to report to the Board of Trade, but I will look into that question.

I wish to ask some questions respecting the Sea Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade. That Department is practically a new one. The Chief Inspector of Fisheries referred in his Report to a Conference, which it was proposed to hold in June, of the representatives of various Sea Fisheries Committees round our coast with the heads of the Department. I wish to ask whether the Conference was held, how many of the Sea Fishery Committees were represented, and whether a report of the proceedings will appear in the Journal of the Board of Trade. I think the Department is to be congratulated on the way in which its suggestions have been adopted around the coast. The need for the Act is strikingly shown by the statistics as to the decrease in the catches of the deep sea fishermen in the North Sea. This is a matter of great national concern. If there has been any delay in putting the Act into operation, I think it is on the part of the Local Authorities and not on the part of the Board of Trade. I wish to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one difficulty that has shown itself with regard to the effective carrying out of the provisions of this Act. Something like a third of the members of the Sea Fisheries Committees are nominated by the Board of Trade from those who are actually engaged in the sea fishing industry. Many of them are practical fishermen, and I believe the effect of appointing them has been most useful, as it has enlisted in the operation of the Act the sympathies of the men engaged in the fishing industry. In some parts of the country two or three, or even three or four, counties have united together and formed a Sea Fisheries Committee. The result is that the expense to fishermen attending the meetings is sometimes very serious, as attendance means a journey of 50, 60, 70, or even 80 miles. A fisherman going to a meeting so far away has to give up a day's work, and, in addition, incur expense amounting sometimes to as much as 11s. The result has been in some instances practically to prohibit the attendance of fishermen at the meetings. I understand that at present there are no means by which either the Board of Trade or the National Treasury can defray the expenses of the fishermen when called away from their homes on the work of these Committees. I am afraid the absence of any such provision must destroy much of the value of the Sea Fisheries Committees, and I would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether something cannot be done to meet the difficulty I have pointed out. There is at present a Bill before the House which embodies several useful Amendments to the Sea Fisheries Act, and I confess I have been somewhat tempted to put down Amendments to that measure to carry out the object I have in view. I have refrained from that course, however, because the Bill is a very useful one, and I have been afraid of jeopardising its passing into law this Session. I congratulate the Board of Trade on the success which has attended their effort to give the workers in this industry some controlling voice over it. They have done more in this respect than any other Government Department, but, at the Same time, it is to be regretted that the usefulness of their Act should be marred by the inability of any public body to pay the third-class railway fare of the fishermen who are members of the Committees.

The Report as to the working of the Sea Fisheries Act shows how generally the Act has been adopted, and I think the constitution of the Sea Fisheries Committees all round the coast has given satisfaction to everybody. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should increase the usefulness and interest of the Report by adding a map showing the boundaries of the various sea fishery districts. I would also join in the appeal of the hon. Member for Scarborough, that some steps should be taken towards defraying the expenses of the fishermen attending the meetings. One of the most valuable provisions in the Sea Fisheries Act is, that a fair proportion of the members of the Committees should be practical fishermen. I believe the presence of fishermen on the Committees, and the other clause in the Act which enables the President of the Board of Trade to summon Conventions of the various Committees, will do more than anything else to make the Act of real value to the fishermen all round the coast. But the fishermen cannot attend the meetings in large and appreciable numbers unless some contribution is made to their expenses. Often the Committees meet at considerable distances from the residences of the men, who very frequently cannot afford the expense of attending. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will hold out some promise that he will devise some means by which some moderate allowance will be made towards the travelling expenses of the practical fishermen.

I also should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the success of his Fishery Act—and I think that I have probably had as much experience of its working in Essex as any hon. Member has had in any other part of the country. But my object in troubling the Committee is not to deal with that Act. I believe that Friendly Societies and Trades Unions that are on the Register may make terms with the Board of Trade, and, that being so, I should like to call attention to certain matters connected with the National Agricultural Labourers' Union. This Union was formed in 1873—

^* : I rise to order. This question has nothing to do with the Vote now before the Committee.

I am not aware of the connection.

Shall I be able to call attention to this question on the Vote for the Friendly Societies' Register?

I cannot commit myself to the future.

I think the right hon. Baronet opposite must be pretty well satiated with the praise he has received for his Fisheries Act from all sides of the House. Still, I beg to join in the general chorus. I have some knowledge of the question, and I am sure there are many good men indeed who are most able fishermen, well skilled, and. competent to speak with authority on these matters, who are deterred from going to the meetings—especially from attending the conferences in London—in consequence of their inability to bear the expense. I trust the President of the Board of Trade will give some consideration to this subject.

I can confirm what has been said by my hon. Friend on this side of the House as to the value of the Fishery Act, and also as to the difficulty practical fishermen experience in attending the meetings of the Committees. I trust the President of the Board of Trade will provide some facilities for enabling County Councils or Committees to pay the expenses of these fishermen. The matter is one of great practical importance, as I have found on the Committee for the joint counties of Merioneth and Carnarvon, of which I am a Member, that, owing to the absence of practical fishermen, questions have very often to be decided by persons who are not practical, and who have to be guided by what they are able to learn from fishermen not in attendance. It would be a very good thing if practical fishermen could be induced to attend, but the only way to induce them is to pay their expenses. Another difficulty experienced in our county is this: We have no fishing harbour in Cardigan Bay at all. The fishing villages are so small that they cannot provide a harbour. There is no harbour, and there is no fund out of which we could provide one. I find that £24,000 is voted to the Fishery Boards of Scotland for the express purpose of erecting piers and harbours, and that is a subject to which I shall call attention on the proper occasion.

^* : I am very much obliged to hon. Members who have referred in such flattering terms to the way in which this Act has been carried out by the officials of the Board of Trade. I can bear testimony to the manner in which they have dealt with the matter, and I really think they have succeeded in giving satisfaction to everybody. With reference to the suggestion as to the publication of a map made by the hon. Member for Merioneth, I think I can arrange for that being done. The other point raised was the payment of the expenses of the fishermen's representatives on the Fishery Boards. I am not disposed to be very straightlaced in this matter, and I hope it may be possible to do something without raising the general question of the payment of the expenses of members of County Councils or of this House. I would rather approach the subject with the principle in view which obtains in the payment of the expenses of members of Royal Commissions. It seems to me that the subject should be brought on next year before the Conference of the representatives of the different Fishery Committees. We would then get an expression of opinion which could be considered by the Board of Trade. I hope I have shown that any recommendation they may make will meet with reasonable sympathy from me, should I have the honour to continue in the office which I now hold.

The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked my question, whether any Report is likely to appear in the Return?

^* : I think so, though I cannot speak with certainty.

The Report of Mr. Courtney Boyle on railway accidents ends with the statement that there is considerable danger to human life from overworking railway officials. I wish to know what regulations the Board of Trade have made since this Report was made, and whether it has been their experience that the Railway Companies put difficulties in their way? Sometimes signalmen are so exhausted as to make it clearly dangerous for them to be entrusted with the manipulation of machinery or the custody of trains where there are many crossings or where there are a large number of passengers.

^* : I have given very great attention for the past four months to this subject, having had the honour to preside over a Select Committee which has considered it. The Board of Trade has absolutely no power to direct Railway Companies as to the hours during which they may employ their servants. Whether we should have such a power, and in what way we should have it, are the points which have been under the consideration of this Committee. The matter is one of very great importance, and I can assure hon. Members that it is by no means escaping attention.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the salaries of the Grain Inspectors, which were to be transferred to the Vote for the Board of Agriculture, are still under the Vote for the Board of Trade?

^* : The transfer has been arranged, and these amounts merely refer to the current year.

^* : I should like to know when we may expect any practical results from the recommendations of the Maritime Conference as to the rules of the road at sea, on which a Departmental Committee is sitting, and how soon the necessary steps will be taken in connection with the United States and other countries to bring about a revision of the rules?

^* : The Departmental Committee reported some time ago, and we thought the first step to take was to communicate with other foreign countries with regard to several points in the Report. We have not yet received answers to all our questions. When we do the Committee will again meet to consider them, and then I hope the matter will finally be settled.

^* : At the risk of being considered a bore, I wish to ask a question as to the hours of the clerks in the Board of Trade, and if I do not receive a general answer concerning the office hours in all. Government Departments I shall repeat my question on subsequent Votes. The answer I received with regard to the Privy Council was that the hours were from 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock. I wish to know whether the hours are the same at the Board of Tr

^* : The solicitor has no private practice whatever; he is solely in the employment of the Board of Trade. As to the arrangement for luncheons, it is the same in the Board of Trade as in other Offices. The reason why the item is only £25 I imagine to be that the offices of the Board of Trade are so scattered that the £25 is only for a small part of the entire offices of the Board of Trade. The hours are as follow: —In the main part of the Board of Trade, 11 to 5 for some clerks, and 10 to 5 o'clock for clerks of the Second Division; Bankruptcy Department, 10 to 5 all round; Seamen's Registry, 10 to 5 all round, and in the Patent Office 10 to 5 all round. I think that answers the question of the hon. Member.

I now rise to move the reduction of the Vote for the Patent Office by the sum of £100, in order that I may have the opportunity of advocating the redress of a grievance which is felt to be serious by the large and important class of inventors in this country. Under Section 24 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, it is provided that the fees shall be such as may be from time to time, with the sanction of the Treasury, prescribed by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade may, from time to time, if they think fit, with the consent of the Treasury, reduce any of these fees. It is evident, thererefore, that the initiative in reducing the fees rests with the Board of Trade, so that, if there is, as I contend there is, a strong case for the reduction of these fees, and they are not reduced when they ought to be, the responsibility primarily rests with the President of the Board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying to a question I addressed to him early in the Session, admitted that the receipts of the Patent Office for the year 1889 were £93,534 in excess of the expenditure. The Report for the year 1890 since issued shows a large increase on that large sum, namely, £109,366. The Patent Office for the year, in round numbers, yielded no less than £165,000; designs, £4,500; trade marks fees, £16,400; and sale of publications, 16,000; making a total of £192,000; while the total expenditure of the Patent Office was only £83,240. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to defend the exaction of fees in excess of the requirements of the Office, but he said that manufacturers did not object to fees which had the effect of extinguishing useless patents, and that it is in contemplation to spend a considerable sum on new buildings to which the excess of revenue will be applied, although I observe that only £12,000 appears in the Estimates for this purpose. Now, I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been misinformed regarding the views of manufacturers. Within the last two years Mr. A. V. Newton, of Chancery Lane, presented to the Board of Trade Memorials from manufacturers and inventors in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Lon- don, praying for a reduction of these fees, and at the same time Mr. Barker, a patent agent in Birmingham, presented a monster Petition to the same effect from that city. The Memorials presented by Mr. Newton sought a reduction of £50, leaving the renewal fees to stand at £100. The Birmingham Memorialists went considerably further, and proposed that the fees should be reduced to £30. Mr. Newton has on several occasions brought the subject under the notice of the Board of Trade, in the year 1888, and still more recently. Mr. Whitelow, an active and intelligent patent agent in Manchester, has written extensively on the subject in the leading journal of that city, the Manchester Guardian, and also in the Textile Mercury. Mr. Eaton, of the International Patent Agency, Martin's Lane, London, an able and earnest advocate of reforms in our Patent Laws and their administration, has also prepared a very comprehensive Memorial on the subject which I hold in my hand. Numerous pamphlets have been printed, one of the most interesting and valuable of which is by Mr. Keith, an inventive and enterprising Scotchman now carrying on a large business in London. It was a statement in his pamphlet which suggested my first question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since then I have been almost overwhelmed with correspondence from all parts of the Kingdom urging me to persevere with my advocacy of a reduction of these fees, and it is because I find such a strong body of opinion on the subject that I venture to bring it before the Committee. I may explain that the cost of a patent in this country is largely in excess of that in any other country in the world. The British Government exacts £154 for a patent for 14 years, against £7 10s. which has to be paid for a patent in the United States for 17 years. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to the statement—

"That a patentee in this country had to pay a sum of £154 for 14 years' protection, whereas in the United States of America the cost was only £7 for 17 years' protection,"

recently contended that—

"The position is not fairly represented, because protection is given for periods less than 14 years for sums less than the amount set out. Protection for four years, for instance, is given in an ordinary case for £4, whereas the payments required to be made within the same period in the United States amount to £6 or £7."

In reply to this it must be observed that while protection for four years costs only £4, the payment of £10 for the fifth year brings that up to £14, being for five years about double the charge in the United States for 17 years. Our Government makes the heavy charge of £154 simply for registering and giving a certificate that a patent has been granted, the sole benefit of which is that it places the patentee in a position to begin legal proceedings against anyone who may infringe his patent. The Patent Office does nothing to ascertain or to guarantee the validity of the patent. This is all our Patent Office does for the £154 which it receives. On the other hand, the United States Patent Office, for the £7 10s. it receives, ensures the patentee a real title by a painstaking examination by the best experts. Computing the fees for the number of years for which the patents existed in the different countries, the average charge in each country is as follows:—

It will thus be seen that this country is far behind even Russia, our fees being 100 per cent. more than those in that benighted land, while they are 2,500 per cent. more than those in the United States. As illustrating how these fees affect the number of patents issued, it may be mentioned that in 1887 the figures stood as follows:—

This statement shows that while the small fees encourage the taking out of double the number of patents in the United States, the total amount of the fees is double that in this country, and a very large patent fund has been accumulated. This country, in effect, levies a heavy tax upon its inventors, on the men to whose ingenuity it is so largely indebted for its manufacturing and mercantile prosperity. The United States, on the other hand, makes the most reasonable charge on the inventor, with the result that almost every American citizen is a patentee. America encourages her poor newsboys, like Edison, to become distinguished inventors and millionaires, while the Patent Office in this country exacts fees which to many a poor man are prohibitory, and although in many cases he may scrape together the £4 charged during the first four years, he is quite unable to pay the £10, £15, and £20 per annum exacted during the remaining 10 years. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when President of the Board of Trade in 1883, introduced a great improvement on the system which had previously existed. Under the Patent Act of 1852 the patent fee of £ 150 was required to be paid in two instalments of £50 and £100 respectively, which covered the patent for 14 years. Under the Act of 1883 the total sum of £154 was spread over 14 years in the following manner:£1 was charged on filing the provisional patent, and £3 on its completion, so that for the first four years the total charge is only £4. Then from the end of the fourth year to the end of the seventh year £10 per annum has to be paid, for the next two years £15 per annum, and the next four years £20 per annum. These changes led to a large increase in the number of patents. Under the Act of 1852 the largest number of applications was in 1882, the total being 6,241, but immediately after the passing of the Act of 1883, which spread the fees over a number of years, the applications rose to 17,110, and they have gone on steadily increasing until in 1889 the number was 21,008. The easier method of charging the fees, although the total fees remained the same, has led to an increase in the number of applications for patents of between 300 and 400 per cent. The reason why the renewal fees were left unaltered in their aggregate amount was that it was feared that without these the administration of the Patent Office might be carried on at a loss, owing to the reduction brought about by the diminished fees. The question of renewal fees was therefore left in statu quo, but now that it is plainly evident that there is no risk of such loss as was then feared (owing to the number of patents having increased four-fold through the easier method of paying the fees), the time has come to consider the question of renewal of fees de novo. The merits and demerits of renewal fees were never really considered. The small sum charged during the first four years has multiplied the applications, which last year were 21,300 in number, and the trade of Birmingham especially— where great ingenuity is shown in the making of small nick-nacks and appliances—has largely benefited, since the low initial fees enable small inventions having only a temporary sale to be protected for a number of years at a small cost. With inventors elsewhere, and particularly in Manchester and the North, the matter stands differently. Take a typical instance. A working man invents a new machine and patents it. In working it practically he discovers defects, which he removes within the first year or two by successive improvements, for which he takes out additional patents, as he can do for a small sum of money. It takes him some time after he brings out his machine to overcome the vis inertiœ of prejudice against novelties. When he begins to make headway, and expects some return for his labours, he discovers that the renewal fees on his original patent and its improvements are too much for his resources, and his patents are too frequently allowed to lapse, not because the invention as such is unsuccessful, but simply from lack of means to meet the taxes on his brains which the Patent Laws of the country impose, since these taxes during the next 10 years amount to £150, the result being that only 10 per cent. Of all the patents granted survive for the full period of 14 years. They are literally strangled by these exorbitant renewal fees. I hold in my hand a large number of letters from inventors testifying to the crushing effect of these fees. One of my correspondents—Mr. Weir, Charing Cross, says—

"The answer Mr. Goschen gave shows clearly that he has no conception of the enormous injury that these heavy fees inflict on the country. I speak advisedly, because my son, an engineer, has taken out between 50 and 60 patents, and for every one of these patents, if carried out to the full term of 14 years, the Government takes £154. The same patent taken out in the United States costs £7 for 17 years. I know the United States very well, and every man who goes there and studies that country can see for himself that the encouragement given to patentees there is the principal cause that has led to the prosperity of that country. Capitalists there assist inventors. There is not £150 to deter them; so easy is it to get on with an invention there that this country is inundated with American inventions. Edison would never have made the name he has if he had lived in this country. Mr. Goschen should know that the inventors, as a class are poor men kept down by these heavy taxes. Manufacturers will not help a poor man in this country. They know it is only a question of time when the invention will fall into their hands, and Mr. Goschen's answer to you, if be did but know it, was a manufacturer's answer, namely, that in a short time they would get the poor man's invention and his brains for nothing. All these thousands of pounds are taken out of the pocket of the poor man, and at the same time injure the progress of the country."

Mr. James Keith, of London, Edinburgh, and Arbroath, writes—

"Many working men in this country, seeing no hope before them of being able to meet these, to theme, enormous charges, prefer not to patent their ideas at all, but do actually sell them to Americans, who take them up readily and produce the novelties in the States on a large scale, sending them over here again as bonâ fide Yankee notions, when they are really British inventions after all."

And again—

"During the present year I am paying at the rate of £150 per annum in renewal fees under the new Act, while, as time rolls on, these fees keep increasing in amount during the life of the patents till £200 per annum is reached on each. These figures, I think, speak for themselves, being taken from the practical experience of myself. Ordinarily, the crippling effect is tremendous, for how can any workman stand such payments?"

As corroborating what these correspondents says, I may mention that the number of applications to our Patent Office for patents from the United States last year was not less than 2,597, as against 14,000 from England and 1,000 only from Scotland. I could quote many similar passages from the sheaf of letters which I have beside me, but I think what I have read will suffice to establish that these fees are both excessive and injurious, and that they ought to be reduced. My belief is that even if the fees were reduced, and reduced very considerably, there would not be a proportionate reduction of the total receipts of the Patent Office, but we should see that as the spreading of the fees over a number of years led to a large increase of applications, so would the lessening of the annual payments. Many more patents would be applied for, and many more payments made which would compensate to a large extent for the reduction of the fees. No one would object to a reasonable and prudent expenditure in enlarging the Patent Office. The accommodation at present for the extensive records that require to be kept is miserable. The Library is a limbo where inventors soon lose themselves, and give up searches in despair. Much might be done to improve the arrangements. A larger staff of examiners and compilers of abridgments should be employed, so that they might be brought closely up to date. Now they are 25 years behind time. The American system of examination should be adopted to prevent duplicating and triplicating patents for the same invention. In some points the Patent Acts should be amended, especially in conformity with the recommendations of the very valuable Report made some time ago by the Chairman of the Chemical and Allied Trades Committee. With a surplus of £110,000 a year to work upon, the Patent Office might do much to encourage poor inventors by purchasing from them inventions of real utility, and making them free to the public. The German Government frequently offers prizes as an encouragement to inventors, and one was recently offered for the best invention in railway train brakes. The method of dealing with modifications and additions to patents also admits of considerable improvement. It will be observed that I have not contended for the total abolition of renewal fees, but I say that to tax inventors £ 150 on each invention in a country which has so much to gain from the encouragement of inventions is most injurious, not only to the inventor, but to the country. I think, too, the period of protection might be extended from four to seven years. A comparatively small annual payment during the currency of the patent should suffice, and either £3 or £5 per annum would be quite sufficient. In conclusion, permit me to say that I think the present system of transferring the annual surplus from the Patent Office to the Treasury is very ob- jectionable. When so transferred, the money is lost sight of, and inventors are apt to forget how heavily they are being taxed. During the last five years these surpluses have amounted to fully £360,000. I think the Patent Office revenue ought to be distinctly ear-marked and appropriated for the advantage of inventors, and not thrown hotch-potch into the general revenue of the country. It is extremely inconsistent on the part of the Government to grant large sums on the one hand for technical education, and then on the other to tax those who are technically educated and are turning their technical education to good account. We should not only endeavour to fetch up our leeway so far as technical education is concerned, but we should adopt all the enlightened methods we can devise to stimulate and encourage inventors in all the arts and crafts which are the foundation of our manufacturing and mercantile pre-eminence Did the President of the Board of Trade recently notice that on the 8th of April, at Washington,

"A Congress of the inventors and manufacturers of patented inventions, to celebrate the beginning of the second century of the American patent system, was opened? President Harrison and the Members of the Cabinet were among those present."

The holding of such a Congress shows how much the American people appreciate their patent system and how they value its liberal provisions. If such a Congress were summoned in this country it would be for a very different purpose: it would be to denounce the illiberal, the exacting, the mischievous provisions of our Patent Laws. Instead of our Patent Office being a helpful promoter of inventions, it is a hard, niggardly, un-sympathising tax collector, bent on screwing all it can out of the poor inventor, while aiding him as little as possible, and boasting what should be its shame, the confiscation of his invention for the benefit of the wealthy manufacturer or capitalist, simply because he cannot afford to pay the heavy fees it demands from the fifth to the fourteenth year of the patent. In conclusion, I would respectfully urge the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and his Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no longer to look at this question merely from the manu- facturer or capitalist's point of view; no longer to look at it from the Treasury point of view as to how much the inventors of the United Kingdom can be made to contribute to the taxation of the country. Rather let them take the broader and more enlightened views which are suggested by reference to the grants in aid of technical education; and by the representations which have been made in so many Memorials, letters, and pamphlets in the interest of inventors, advocating the reduction of these renewal fees not merely for the benefit of inventors, but for the advancement of our trade and manufactures, the employment of our people, and the prosperity of the country at large. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100,

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item R, Salaries of the Patent Office, be reduced by £100."—( Mr. Leng. )

I should like to say a few words in support of the Motion of my hon. Friend, and urge upon the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether something cannot be done to reduce the Patent Fees. There is no matter which interests all classes of the community, and especially the industrial classes, more than the encouragement of invention. Inventions are a source of national wealth, and ought to be encouraged, as in the United States of America, which are vastly in advance of this country in the matter of inventions, especially inventions for the saving of labour. I would recommend the President of the Local Government Board to pay no attention whatever to his colleagues who sit upon that side of the House. I was about to congratulate him on the departure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but his place has been taken by that watchful dragon of the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds. Formerly the Law Officers of the Crown had an interest in the patent fees, but that interest was abolished when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury and myself held those offices. Our predecessors drew sometimes £10,000, £12,000, and even £15,000 annually from the patent fees, but the Law Officers of the Crown are now paid by salary, and the fees go straight into the Treasury. With an annual surplus of £ 120,000 the fees ought certainly to be reduced. The Patent Office ought not to be like the Post Office, which is a commercial under taking, and, as I have always contended, ought to be a source of profit to the State. These fees are a tax on inventions which, after all, constitute one of the greatest sources of national wealth, and it seems to me that a more inexpedient tax than this could not be imagined. Inventors as a class are poor men, and one result of these high patent fees is that in order to be able to pay the fees they are, in too many cases, compelled to place themselves in the hands of rich men, who secure the greater portion of the profit of successful inventions. That has been the fate of the inventors of some of the greatest inventions which have distinguished the trade and commerce of this country. I know that the charges for the first year have already been largely diminished, but it is often the case largely inventions do not become remunerative until they have been in use some time, and therefore I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to reducing the fees still further. There is no matter more deserving of careful consideration. Under these circumstances, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give a favourable reply to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee.

^* (7.30.) : I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman favours the idea of the hon. Member for Dundee that the State should buy the patents of inventors at their own price.

Excuse me. That was part of my hon. Friend's proposal I had forgotten, otherwise I should have entirely disclaimed it. I certainly do not endorse the suggestion that the Government should buy all patents. In fact, I confined my support of the proposals of the hon. Member for Dundee to the question of the reduction of fees.

I am glad I have elicited so sound a doctrine from the right hon. Gentleman, and I will attempt to deal with that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee in which he suggested that something should be done in the reduction of fees. The first question which the Government have to consider is what they can afford to do. I do not suppose that the hon. Member or the right hon. Gentleman will argue that the cost of the Patent Office ought to be charged upon the general taxation of the country. Patentees, I think, should certainly provide for the cost of the office. On the other hand, I do not think that the country ought to look upon the Patent Office as a permanent source of income. The change which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made in 1883 did make a very great difference in the fees received. In 1883 the gross receipts from patent fees were more than £211,000, but after the Act of 1883 came into force the gross receipts from patent fees sank to £88,000. The large increase in the sum derived from patent fees beyond the expenditure on the Patent Office, which of course is really the groundwork of the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee, is a matter of very recent growth indeed, for in 1886 there was actually a deficit of £ 2,800 in connection with the Patent Office. The estimated surplus for 1891 is £116,500, and the Government contemplate very considerable expenditure for the benefit of the Service. I have thought it right to examine thoroughly the buildings in which the work of the office is done, and ally more inconvenient buildings both for the gentlemen employed and the public I have never seen. Complete re-construction will be necessary, and it will cost fully £ 130,000. The money will be very well spent, because the re-arrangement will facilitate a more efficient and economical administration of the office, and after the reconstruction the public, who frequent the office in large numbers, will have convenient access to the specifications and to all the publications in the library. The expenditure will be provided for out of the surplus of the next two or three years. It is also very necessary to make more rapid progress with the work of the abridgment of specifications. Copies of the actual specifications are sent round to a certain number of public libraries, but only in very few places can they be turned to any public use. The public generally want abridgements, and to proceed with their preparation more rapidly will involve further expenditure, which must come out of the surplus from the Patent Office fees. The fact that this expenditure must be incurred being admitted, I am ready to acknowledge that there are grounds for considering whether something may not also be done in the direction of the reduction of fees. It is not quite right to compare the fees charged here only with those charged in the United States, and I, for one, would be very sorry to see the adoption in this country of the United States system, under which, by the payment of £7, a patentee can obtain protection for 17 years. It is my opinion that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham introduced an admirable system by the Act of 1883, when he provided that protection shall be given for four years on the payment of £4, and that if the patentee requires further protection he shall be asked to make larger payments year by year until the total period of 14 years is completed. I think that in any scheme of revision the system of making a small demand for the first years and of increasing the payment for the later years should certainly be adhered to. Comparison has been made between the total payment exacted in this country for 14 years—namely, £154—with the payment of £7 exacted in the United States. Ours, however, is not the highest payment required to be made, for in Germany the total sum paid for a protection of 15 years amounts to £265. It has been said that these patent fees constitute a tax upon invention. I deny that that is the fact when the payment is light for the first few years. A payment of for four years cannot be regarded as a tax upon invention. It is a lower payment than is demanded by any other country for protection for a similar period. My view is that we should consider whether a reduction may not be made in the fees charged in the interval between four years and eight years, so as to extend the cheap protection now given for four years to a longer period. I do not believe that it would be to the advantage of the public or even of inventors themselves that patentees should be enabled to retain at a cheap rate during the whole period of 14 years patent rights with regard to patents which are not worked, and which are not likely to be worked. Such retention would be as great a hindrance to invention as anything that could be imagined. If a patent is not taken up in a period of seven or eight years, is it likely to be taken up at all? If it is taken up, then the fees charged for the rest of the 14 years will be comparatively trivial as compared with the profits of the successful patentee. What has to be considered, then, is the position of the patentee who does not work his patent during the first four years, and I think that what should be done is to make the fees low for a certain number of years, during which the patentee can continue to look about for opportunities to work his patent, but we ought not, by lowering the subsequent fees, to encourage him to retain his patent rights un worked for the whole period. I trust that the hon. Member for Dundee will be satisfied with the statement which I have been able to make.

^* : I beg to express my gratification at the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman that he will consider the expediency of extending the period when low fees are charged. As to the proposed reconstruction of the Patent Office, I do not think that anyone will grudge the expenditure if the accommodation is greatly enlarged and improved.

I wish to know how the work of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade is going on. I have no complaint to make with regard to the work done at that office. The only thing I have to complain of is that it takes so long to do.

^* : I assure the hon. Member that this matter has by no means escaped my attention. Mr. Burnett has recently been appointed to a very honourable and responsible position, that of Secretary to the Royal Commission on Labour, for which I think the Committee will be of opinion he was eminently qualified, and I have made arrangements by which his work at the Labour Department will be carried on, of course under his supervision. With regard to providing permanent assistance, the hon. Member will find in the Estimates of this year an item for additional clerks, several of whom will be placed in the Labour Department.

I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen to a matter I raised last year. The main entrance to Atherstone, small town in Warwickshire, is crossed by the London and North Western Railway on the level. It is unnecessary for me to remind the Committee that all the Irish, Scotch, Manchester, and Liverpool and other trains pass Atherstone—

^* : I rise to order, Sir. This is a matter in which I have absolutely no power.

The question is outside the functions of the Board of Trade.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

3. £11, Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.

I should be glad if the President of the Board of Trade will inform the Committee what is the condition of the Bankruptcy Estates Account. Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 the fees which are levied in connection with bankruptcy business go to an account from which very large sums of money are transferred from time to time to the Exchequer, and, having been received into the Exchequer, they are invested or held on hand in case they, or some of them, should be wanted for bankruptcy administration. I do not think we have received any information since the institution of the account as to the sums which have been paid in or paid out, or as to the amount of invested capital which is now in the hands of the Exchequer, and yet the 76th Section, Sub-Section (2) of the Bankruptcy Act directs that the fees chargeable in connection with bankruptcy proceedings shall be fixed with reference to the amount of the dividends obtained from the invested sums. We know that the sums held by the Exchequer are very large indeed, because some years ago the interest obtained was not less than £22,000. It is true that since the Act of 1883 provision has been made for the appropriation of certain sums from the Bankruptcy Estates Account, to the purpose of furnishing accommodation in connection with the offices for bankruptcy business and for paying rent of bankruptcy offices; but I suppose that the sums received have been very largely in excess of anything required for such services. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will cause inquiry to be made, he will find there is abundant capital in hand to enable him to effect very substantial reductions in the fees now charged for bankruptcy, and the more so that a great number of estates now show a deficit, and are unable to meet the low charges in connection with them. It is extraordinary that in this country the only people who apparently make anything out of bankruptcy are the bankruptcy officials and the Exchequer. The Exchequer gets year after year increasing profits at the expense of the unfortunate creditors. Under such circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman might accede to the application made to him over and over again that the fees in connection with bankruptcy business should be substantially reduced.

I have before called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that no final settlement has yet been arrived at with regard to the Bethnal Green Bank. I do not like to repeat rumours I hear, but it is quite evident that those interested in the bank are by no means satisfied with the hands into which the affairs of the bank have fallen for winding up purposes. The people interested in the bank are very poor. They seem to have been swindled out of their money. They would be extremely glad if the right hon. Gentleman could do anything to bring about a settlement.

^* : With regard to the Bank at Bethnal Green I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any fresh information. It is some little time since the Bank failed, indeed, it was before the Act of last year came into force. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Donegal, I think that if the hon. Gentleman will look at page 116, he will see an estimate there of receipts and expenditure on bankruptcy services. He will see that the interest on the money invested is estimated at £18,000. Then he will see that the total expenditure is estimated at £159,000, as against £138,000 receipts. Therefore, he is mistaken in supposing that the Exchequer makes a profit. I should be glad to see the bankruptcy fees reduced, especially in the case of those small estates to which the hon. Member referred, in which the fees and costs no doubt do swallow up a large portion of the estates; but it is difficult to reduce the fees when the state of the account is as shown on page 116.

I think that if the right hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to compare what purports to be an estimate of the receipts and expenditure with the actual experience of two years ago, he will come to the conclusion that I have come to, namely, that the estimate of receipts for the year is not only wilfully, but grossly, understated. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is less bankruptcy business in the present year than there was two years ago?

^* : Certainly; there is a very considerable falling off in the business.

Of course, I accept that statement. But as to the interest on money invested, I do not understand why they receive only £18,000, when two years ago they received £22,000, unless there has been some extraordinary expenditure so as to reduce the money in hand by a very substantial amount.